Filed in the 5th Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, Maryland 14 October 1997

C97-40661In the Matter of Eugene Robert Zarwell v. The State of Maryland, et al,

FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION

The above matter, " Zarwell vs. The State of Maryland",C97-40661, A claim for damages, came up for appearance on November 21, 1997 in the 5th Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, State
of Maryland, Judge Eugene Lerner presiding.

There is no record[1]of appearance by or on behalf of The State neither in its 5th Circuit Court nor in motions addressing the "Claim for Damages"presented. Filed within 30 days after
served upon the Secretary of State per Maryland published procedures, was a motion for Default Judgment for the clerk's signature also authorized in Maryland procedures. Without such
acknowledgment, an amendment filed on January 9, 1998 asked for "Summary Judgment" absent of any challenge by the State of amount or stated facts.

A case substituted by the Attorney General, represented an appeal, entitled, "Zarwell
v. Diversified Information Systems, et a"l.It was later confirmed dismissed in the Court of Special Appeals as not being filed or properly served, according to Judge Thieme's, unpublished opinion, No. 1797. A fraudulent Docket number,
that of the"Claim" was replaced in court records as No. 9710799, an administrative appeal that was repealed by Maryland's
Department of Labor, Licensing, and Regulation after it was proven the state tampered with evidence, and after a "Request For Judicial Review" was docketed as C97-42004.It, too, was defaulted upon by the agency through the Attorney General's fraudulent guidance and pleadings. However, Judge North, 5th Circuit Court, presiding, became confused and frustrated, and dismissed the fraudulent administrative appeal as the "Request for Judicial Review" (C97-42004)and so noted that on her ruling; stating she was confused by the actions of the defendant.

There is a written exchange in the case files of that incident and
several other unanswered requests as attested by Judge Thieme in his opinion: (1) he assumed from the appellee pleading that appellant filed a notice of appeal; (2)
fact is that it was a "Request for Judicial Review"; (3) it was nullified by the DLLR repealing its decision three months earlier; (4) a transcript of its hearings proved some documents was removed to make it appear that petitioner misrepresented facts,(5)retrieved evidence presented to petitioner is still sealed in an dated envelope and has never been opened, and (6) pursuant to Maryland rule 2-322(b)(2) , he wrote, a trial court must assume truth of all well-pleaded relevant and material facts in the complaint, as well as all inferences that reasonably can be drawn therefrom.

This case Thieme apparently
reviewed never existed and was so deemed by Zarwell in several attempts to clear the records of non-essential information as noted in the Justice's footnote 4 on page7 of his opinionPerhaps
the appellant's Motion for Court tocorrect Its Files, Case Numbers, and remove Inappropriate Documents, filed June 23, 1998, should have been granted with respect to the captioning of the court''s June 16, 1998,
Order.

In Thieme's findings, he stated; “there was no service
of the original complaint, of which service is documented in court records after two rulings one to close and another to reopen the "Claim for Damages" C97-40661 with service by the court to the Secretary of State per Maryland procedures.

It should be recognized,
that DLLR suggested Petitioner file in the 5th Circuit Court for an appeal No. 97100795. This was never done because the "Request for Judicial Review" was already docketed as C97-42004 before
records were recovered proving Fraud in the record after hearing examiners removed and replaced evidence with a different document never shown
to petitioner from the case file, however, it had no relevance to the "Claim for Damage", C97-40661.

That realization dismissed "Zarwell vs. Diversified Information Systems", a case that never existed[2];
and when a "Writ of Certiorari", PHC No. 502, was presented to Chief Judge Bell, at the "Court of Appeals" he denied reconsideration of true facts and pleadings in the case "Zarwell vs. The State, et al."C97-40661, but never signed his opinion stating "it was in not in the best interest of the State".

Obviously, it was a Whistleblower
situation demonstrating how Percentionals[3]deal with Pro Se Litigants. Some reviewers expressed that this is a perfect case history meeting RICO standards – reason for testimony before the Judicial Committees.

NOTICE

This report is a recommendation.The matter had been referred in
1998 to the Secretary of State for Maryland, the President of the Senate Mike Miller, and Speaker of the House of Delegates for adjudication, with several pleadings to
the Anne Arundel 5th Circuit Court for administrative "Default" and "Summary of Damages".

It has been interfered with by a third party, King and Nordlinger, LLP.,
illegally seizing from storage, evidence for destruction or distribution, and offered return through extortion; thus, denying "Due Process Plaintiff is
entitled to What is Due. Through failure of defendant, the former Attorney General (signatory for The State),
for "nonappearance and fraud on the Court" through government actions to deceive various judges at all levels denying that which is Constitutionally due process; "Fair and
Jus". Cite: U.S. Supreme Court Brief No. 07-10789 "3rd
Party Interference with Plaintiff's Due Process Rights for What is Due".

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1.Whether disciplinary action should be taken against the Former Attorney General Curran or the former Secretary of State, for failure to respond or appear at
the Circuit Court. Or, incarcerate in accordance with Federal Rule Civil Procedure 55.

2.Full Summary Judgment be awarded to include delayed penalties including both annual fines of 10 percent per Maryland Code, plus original dollar value at the
time of default (+19%). The State of Maryland neither denied facts in this case, nor disputed amounts claimed in the matter of "Zarwell
vs. The State of Maryland, et al", C97-40661.

3.A totally unrelated action was created that did not exist, but was acted upon as an appeal
without ever being filed; however, fraud charges were summarily excused by Chief Justice Bell in an opinion of case never docketed and cannot be located by any Judge on the Bench or clerks in any of Maryland's courts as
expressed by Justice Heller in his contentious dialogue with plaintiff to a request to find original pleadings in a case captioned as: "Zarwell vs. Diversified Information Systems".None was found.

4.If a non-existent case was closed, does it affect plaintiff''s due process right to default and summary judgments in the case that was filed? Maryland rule:
nonappearance by defendant based upon all proceedings herein, any Administrative Law Judge can assign Default and Summary Judgment in favor of the Plaintiff, Petitioner, and Appellant as named in the case caption to i.e.: Claim for Damages.

5.Why if defendant, can an elected official of the State, circumvent published rules without being held accountable for damages caused by such actions deemed Fraud
on the Court within sanctions iterated in; Federal Rules Civil Procedures 55.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1.Two judges, the Honorable Pamela North and the
Honorable Eugene Lerner, each ordered dismissed, actions regarding "Zarwell v. Diversified Information Systems", without regard to the claim for damages before them.Their actions were based upon motions from the Attorneys General requesting dismissal of "Zarwell v. Diversified Information Systems",No. 9710799, disguised; but later recognized as a fraudulent case;docketed
by the 5th Circuit Court clerk using unique case numbers of both a "Claim for Damages" and a "Request for Judicial Review" as C97-40661 & C97-42004 alternately. But not as an appeal!

2.Both Judges, the Honorable James Cawood (23
October 1998), and the Honorable Robert H. Heller (1 November 2000) declared; the case was neither an appeal combined with a claim, nor a case filed by Zarwell, but with its substituted caption"Zarwell vs. Diversified Information Systems", and adopted docket numbers made it appear to be an actual case to confuse the courts over the original Claim for Damages. It only worked under pressure from the AG's perspective.

3.Both Orders to Dismiss cited "Zarwell
v. Diversified Information Systems", but case numbers used resulted in those orders fraudulently dismissing "Zarwell v. The State of
Maryland", and ignoring the fact that the "Request for Judicial Review" was defaulted when a Decision by The Maryland Department
of Labor, Licensing and Regulation, after finding tampering with evidence distorted a favorable hearing decision in favor of the Appellant; Unemployment Insurance Appeal No.
9710795 that was withdrawn before failing to answer the "Request for Judicial Review" and no further pleadings were filed by either
party thereafter (It was never an issue).

4.Respondent's (The State) failure to appear on November 21, 1997 has resulted in a finding that Respondent is in default, that allegations contained in this Notice and Order must be accepted as true, and its proposed
action must be upheld, per Maryland Procedures.

5.Respondent did not appear on November 21, 1997, nor did anyone appear on its behalf.Respondent did not file a request for a continuance, nor did it file a Notice of Appearance in Zarwell vs. The State, (C97-40661).

6.Allegations of the claim, invoice of damages, and Order for Default Judgment and Summary are deemed proved and are
incorporated into these Findings by reference (C97-40661 dated: 6 January 1998, 20 March 1998, 23 June 1998 and 23 March 2005).

Based on above Findings of Fact, must act to right this wrong by the following:

CONCLUSIONS

1.The Administrative Law Judge in the 5th Circuit Court or any Maryland court has jurisdiction in this
matter pursuant to Maryland Rules and Procedures.

2. Any of the above Findings of Fact more properly termed
Conclusions are hereby incorporated as such.

3.The Respondent (The State) was served with ninety four, timely and proper notices of
accrued penalties added to principal, each month prior to Judge Heller’s findings that a valid case was dismissed by an order dismissing a fraudulent case never filed in any court.

4.Under Maryland rule 2-231, Respondent (The State) is in default as a result of
its failure to appear on or before November 21, 1997.

5.Under Maryland Rules; 2 – 424 & 2 – 501; , allegations and issues set
out in this Notice of and Order for Default, Invoice of accrued claim and penalty, and previous Motions
for Summary must be taken as true or deemed proved when a party defaults. (Failure factually to contradict facts recited in movant's affidavits constitutes an admission of those facts for purposes of the motion. Roe v
Citizen's Nat'l Bank 32 Md. App 1, 358 A.2d 267 (1976).

6.Based upon facts set forth in this Notice and
Order for Default, Invoice of accrued claim and penalty, plus absent response to requested Orders for Summary, the Respondent (State of Maryland) has violated Maryland Rules 2-424 & 2-501.

7.It is appropriate to summarily award Default and accrued damages to Eugene Zarwell in
accordance with previously stated rules.

8.Disciplinary action against the Respondent is in the public interest within the meaning
of Federal law prohibiting "Fraud on the Court", "Obstruction of Justice" and "Collusion" consistent with felony convictions to be served by Former Attorney General Curran and Justice Bell or including those surrogates who
implemented this fraud.

Based upon the above Conclusions, the Administrative Law Judge makes the following:

RECOMMENDATION

IT IS RECOMMENDED:

(1)That Default is adjudicated, the Order for Summary in this matter be satisfied; and that disciplinary action be taken
against the former Attorney General, former Secretary of State, and Chief Justice and/or including those who implemented this Fraud on behalf of The State.

Dated this _____ day of _________2011.

Administrative Judge / Clerk

Dispatched to the Administrative Judge, 5th Circuit Court on this date April 13, 2011, after determining that case "Zarwell vs. The State"C97-40551 has not been closed after intense review of pleadings by plaintiff, petitioner, appellant in opposition to erroneous filings and pleadings by defendant, appellee, and respondent. As a result of preparations for testimony
before Maryland's Senate Judiciary Committee (SB33) and its House Judiciary Committee (HB797), these findings have been scrutinized and
affirmed to be accurate. It should be noted that Maryland's Commission on Judicial Disabilities has exonerated the lower court judges as unknowing participants in this fraud, but no opinion has been requested nor rendered
regarding actions of the three aforementioned co-conspirators as they are not part of the Judiciary system, but rather defendants in this action as their actions were outside their Constitutional scope of authority.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this date April 13, 2011 a copy of this Notice of Findings requesting Default of C97-40661 and its Summary
Judgment was mailed, postage prepaid to:

5th Circuit Court of Anne Arundel County

Attn: Administrative Judge

P.O Box 71

7 Church Circle

Annapolis, MD 21401-0071

Signed:

____________[s]_______________ Eugene Zarwell, Plaintiff

PMB 988 1153 Rt 3 N Ste G

Gambrills, MD 21054

301-262-5064

[1]
All documents available in each Court's archives can be referenced without replication in filings according to Maryland procedures.A CD can be requested through www.
gzarwell.us/page 4.htm

[2]
Zarwell vs. Diversified pleadings by the Attorney General flip flopped using docket numbers of the Claim for Damages (C97-40661) and the Request
for Judicial Review (C97-42004).

[3]"Percentional" is a term reflecting percentage professionals who add no value to wealth for a percentage of others' earnings.

Current Invoice: Sent to Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley to settle
Failure of State to enforce its own Law regarding Fraud on the Court by
former AG J.
Joseph Curran, Jr., Father-in Law of O'Malley 6-21-10Follow up letter: O'Malley Curran Fraud Connection 10-10-10Over due Notice:
Attorney General & Comptroller 6-21-10Response from MD Comptroller 9-11-10 Record confirmation 19-11-10 Request Record Correction [ref: Default/Summary 21-11-1997)